Cooper v. Swern

Background

Kaazim Cooper, who was incarcerated when he filed the action and had since been released on parole, proceeded without a lawyer. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute allowing claims for violations of federal rights by state actors, and under state law. He sought money damages from Judge Anne Swern, Detective Brengie Vasquez, Frank Bryant, two groups of unidentified investigators or police officers, Assistant District Attorney Jean Prisco, Judge Curtis Farber, and the City of New York.

Cooper challenged a search warrant issued in connection with an assault investigation and alleged that officials seized and later lost his cell phone, clothing, and other property. He also alleged unequal treatment because he was on parole, a conspiracy to violate his rights, problems during his arrest and detention, and constitutional defects in his criminal proceedings. Cooper had been convicted of the underlying charge on March 13, 2024.

Court’s analysis and rulings

The court dismissed Cooper’s claims against Judges Swern and Farber because judges have absolute immunity from damages claims for actions taken as part of their judicial responsibilities. The court also dismissed the claims against ADA Prisco because the allegations concerned actions within her official duties and connected to the criminal proceedings, for which prosecutors have absolute immunity from damages claims.

The court found that Cooper had not alleged facts showing that a City of New York policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional violation. It granted him leave to amend to provide facts supporting a municipal-liability claim against the City.

Regarding the Fourth Amendment challenge to the search warrant, the court explained that a warrant signed by a judge is generally presumed reasonable. Cooper relied on arguments made in his criminal suppression motion and on grand-jury testimony, but he did not allege that Detective Vasquez knowingly or recklessly made false statements or material omissions in the warrant application. The court found that he had not plausibly overcome the warrant’s presumption of reasonableness, but granted leave to amend with facts suggesting that the warrant was facially invalid or obtained through fraud or misrepresentation.

The court dismissed Cooper’s equal-protection claim because he did not allege that he was intentionally treated differently from similarly situated parolees or that the alleged difference lacked a rational basis. It also dismissed his conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) because the allegations were vague, conclusory, and lacked specific facts showing a conspiracy or discriminatory motive.

The court found that Cooper failed to state a federal due-process claim based on lost property. It explained that New York law provides possible remedies for property lost through random or unauthorized government action, and Cooper did not allege that he had pursued those remedies or that they were inadequate.

To the extent Cooper sought to overturn his state conviction or obtain release, the court explained that such relief must generally be sought through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal procedure for challenging a state conviction or custody. The court declined to treat the complaint as such a petition because Cooper had not shown that he had exhausted available state-court remedies. The court deferred deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims because Cooper was being given leave to amend.

Counsel, amendment, and disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Cooper’s motion for appointed counsel without prejudice because it was too early to assess the merits of the case. The court granted Cooper 60 days to file an amended complaint that completely replaces the original complaint and includes the relevant facts, defendants, injuries, and requested relief. The court stated that if he failed to comply within the allowed time and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also denied in forma pauperis status for purposes of any appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.